THE PRODUCTION PUSH

Hokitika Guardian, 2 March 1928, Page 4

THE PRODUCTION PUSH

(Launceston “Examiner.”) The creation of a Directorship of Development for Tasmania, and the selection of Mr Philip J. Perry, of Longford, for the position should meet with general approval. Mr Perry came to Tasmania from progressive New Zealand. In the years he has spent in this: state he has become acquainted with agricultural anil pastoral conditions in every part of it. As chairman ol the Closer Settlement Board Air Perry did excellent work. He put that undertaking on a sound basis. Lately lie has been engaged on the soldier settlement problem. There again, we believe, his services have had all round value, particularly in the case of the “trier,” who has received every consideration and sympathetic treatment. In duly ol las' year “The Examiner” emphasised lie need for making some such appointment. Parliament has voted a large sum of money for the reorganisation of the Agricultural Department. A number of new officers have been added to the staff' for various duties in connection with the production push. Others are being obtained, and soon the Agricultural Department will be. for so small a state, a large and expensive one. Now, as we

pointed out when the appointment of a Director of production was mooted, it is not enough to have a staff of ’capable experts. Tt is essential that they shall be employed to the best advantage. Moreover, the Agricultural. Forestry, Lands, and other departments have a part to play in any development scheme. Thus there is need for eo-operation anti co-ordina-tion as well as for a driving force directed at a definite objective. Hence tlic value of a man who will see that the development campaign is earnestly and effectively prosecuted. In the early part of last session the Government introduced a bill to sanction tho appointment of a Director of Development, but it was dropped, which was a pity. The principles on which it was framed were sound. Ft brought the Agricultural, Forestry, Lands. Mines, and "Works departments under the general control and supervision of the Director of Development, the head of each still having the actual administration of his own department. It. was to lie part of the director’s duty to investigate the best means of developing the state’s resources and industries, to bring about co-operation between the heads of the five departments, to co-ordinate their operations, and to advise Hie Afmistor as he thought fit. In other words he would be a super-head of those departments, extracting the best ideas from each, piecing them together, mid presenting the finished whole to the Minister, and through him to the Government fur approval. TTis rcroinmendutions approved, it would be his province to see that they weie carried out. each department being allotted its share of the work, for the execution of which its own head would he responsible. For the hill sot out that “the permanent head of each of the said departments shall, subject to the director, continue to have the immediate control and management of (he dennrtmenl of which he is such uermiuu'iit head, and he responsible for its discipline. general working, and efficiency." Presumably that is the idea the Government has in view, although it is being worked out somewhat differently. The state Development Board is lo be resuscitated with a view o’

putting the cream of it into executive, which will lil t as an * advisory board to tbe Director. Already there arc lhe Bureaux of -Agriculture with a state council, and the sectional 00111mit tees appointed from it. Back of overvtking is the D. and AI. C ommis-

simi. with its patronage and active assistance. The machinery surely is huh .-sufficient tor the job. and thing-* should sum give evidence of moving. There is no doubt that the main clement now required is not more committees and boards, hut push—real haril systematised push—and that must cqine from the Director of Development. It is no use looking lo Government departments for it. They have to lie driven. They must be kept right into the collar, and it Is particularly necessary to see that there is no pulling in different directions. The interests of the Agricultural anil Lands departments for example are not always those ol the Forestry service. But differences <>t that kind cannot be permitted to in ter fere with or prejudice the progress the development movement is intended to promote. Tt is the war lesson over again. There must be singleness of purpose, and to obtain it unity of command is absolutely necessary. In due course, we take it. the Director s status will he defined by law.